Some of these are stations whose license periods expired on December 1, 1966. My dissent was noted at that time, with the indication that I would file my views at a later time. Due to the pressure of other matters another renewal period has expired before my dissent could be drafted. Since my reasons are essentially the same for the two groups, I will discuss only the February 1, 1967 renewals now before us, simply noting in the footnote1 below the December renewals to which I dissented, grouped according to my major objection to their program proposals.

The February 1 renewals about which I have questioned involve the same issues as did those of December 1-on their face, they appear to reflect too little service in the informational and inspirational areas and too great a concentration on entertainment and, in some cases perhaps, sports. Certainly the amount of proposed News and Other (Agricultural, Religious and Instructional) programming is minimal. There may be sound reasons for this in individual cases, or it may be that the renewal applications of some of the stations do not fairly reflect the service actually provided. I do not believe we should renew-as the majority has voted to do without making further inquiry to determine whether these stations are, in fact, reasonably serving the ascertainable needs of their communities.

Let us consider what we had before us when we acted on these renewals. The applications filed showed the following:

1 station (WGNP) proposes no news programs

3 stations (WDCJ, WAYR, WRHC) propose from .6% to 1.6% news 2 7 stations (WDCJ, WGNE, WGNP, WIVV, WMEN, WOCN, WONS) propose no public affairs programs

6 stations (WSBB, WKIZ, WJNO, WZEP, WYOU, WAXE) propose from .03% to .4% public affairs

10 stations (WFUN, WJCM, WOKB, WQIK, WDLP, WMOP, WONN, WFFG, WCOF, WSUN) propose from .6% to .9% public affairs

1 station (WOCN) proposes no public affairs or other (Agricultural, Religious, Instructional programs)

5 stations (WSBB, WJNO, WFUN, WOKB, WZST) propose from .1% to 2.6% public affairs and other

9 stations (WAPA, WHOO, WDCJ, WGGG, WIRK, WZEP, WKWF, WFFG, WVOZ) propose from 3.0% to 3.9% public affairs and other

15 stations (WJCM, WOGO, WNSM, WALT, WROD, WIXX, WMBR, WVJP, WLEO, WONS, WKIZ, WMFJ, WNEL, WINT, WBOP) propose from 4.0% to 4.9% public affairs and other.

I would like to treat each station individually, after considering its full renewal application which may contain explanatory information not called to our attention. However, time does not permit this, and I will have to deal in generalities, with some particularization in a few cases. But I repeat that the above is the only information before the majority when they voted to renew the licenses of these stations. I think that these bare data call for inquiry rather than routine renewal.

Consider the matter of news programming. Broadcasters talk very persuasively and at length-about their journalistic functions, and we have licensed many stations for small communities on the representation that there was a need for a local outlet for community expression, usually with special emphasis on news and public affairs. WGNP is the only station assigned to Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, a community of some 2,000 population near, but not contiguous to, St. Petersburg. In its last renewal it proposed 3.9% news, but in its 1966 composite week it broadcast none at all and it proposes none for the future. This seems, on the surface, to raise a question of promise versus performance which should be further explored. In addition, it would seem likely that Indian Rocks Beach has a need for a local news service which is not being met either by the

1 (a) Because of inadequate Newsprogramming: WAAA, WGTL, WGIV, WESC, WTHB, WAAK; (b) Because of inadequate Public Affairs programming: WABZ, WREV, WPGF, WJAY, WGBR, WIFM, WCPS, WRNB, WSYD, WPYB, WAGS, WAIR, WCNF, WHNC, WAAK, WKIX; (c) Because of inadequate aggregate time for Public Affairs and Other (Agricultural, Religious and Instructional) programming: WKSC, WAIR, WKIX, WCNF, WSTH, WTNC, WTOB, WJRM, WCOG, WORD, WBZB, WMBL, WCHL, WUSM, WADE, WEEW, WKDX, WLSE, WQOK, WYNA, WCBT, WSKY. (For some stations, more than one reason is given.)

2 One station (WLEY) previously proposed 14.9% News and now proposes 10.0%. However, in its 1966 composite week it broadcast only 0.6% News. Its present proposal is in a range which raises no question, but I think it should have been queried and probably designated for hearing-on its failure to perform as promised.

stations or by the newspapers in Tampa-St. Petersburg. Though I have not checked the record, I would suspect that the original application for the facility emphasized this need and what the station would do to fulfill it. I do not believe this Commission should ratify, without further inquiry, a program proposal submitted by the only station in a community and making no provision for news.

WAYR is the only station assigned to Orange Park, Florida, a community some 13 miles from downtown Jacksonville with a population of some 2600. In fact, as far as I can determine, it is the only station in Clay County, which has a population of about 20,000. It proposes to devote 1.4% of a typical week to news. As a daytimer it has varying hours, so it is perhaps better to talk about it on an hourly basis. Thus considered, the station represents that it will present .84 of a minute of news per hour, with no allowance of any time for a morning or evening news roundup of, say, 10 or 15 minutes. In fact, if we assume a day on which the station was broadcasting for 13 hours, its total news time would be less than 11 minutes for the whole day. And I think this kind of a representation says something about the kind of news the station will present. It would hardly seem likely that so minimal an effort would be thought to justify any local news staff, in the sense of someone whose major responsibility would be the gathering and presentation of news of the community and county. I am afraid that the station's audience will not only get very little news, but that it will consist mostly of "rip, or clip, and read" material.

WHRC is one of 10 AM stations assigned to Jacksonville (one of which may not be on the air yet). It proposes 1.6% news, or .96 of a minute per hour. While it is true that the other stations no doubt provide a more extensive news service, it seems to me that one of two things must be true. Either this station has an audience which listens principally to its programming and gets virtually no news, or its audience listens to its other programs but turns to other stations for news. If the first, a segment of the public is less informed than it should be as to news developments; if the latter, the station is shirking part of its responsibility and letting other stations in the community bear the cost of providing the people of Jacksonville with radio news. I think neither alternative is a desirable one. I have not been able to check the revenue, expense, and other figures for all the stations dealt with here, so may be criticizing some for doing things they can't afford though the majority did not know this, if it is the case, when they acted. However, I have checked on this station and it has substantial revenues and produces what I would imagine most broadcasters would regard as a satisfactory salary-profit figure. I do not think we should routinely renew a station in these circumstances which proposes so little in the way of news. I recognize that all these figures are minimum representations and that the stations may intend to exceed them. However, they are all we have to go on and I do not think we should accept nominal figures on the assumption that the stations will do substantially better. WRHC represents in its last previous renewal application that it would broadcast 4.9% news, but actually presented only 2.9% in the 1966 composite week. It is, of course, now proposing still less. It seems to me that it-and I'm afraid other stations-are downgrading their commitments in the more expensive and difficult, and often less popular, program categories because they feel the majority of the Commission won't do anything about it. I think this represents abdication of one of our major regulatory responsibilities.

Public affairs programs constitute another important aspect of broadcast journalism. Broadcasters have claimed that many, many small communities require stations which can discuss local affairs, present local candidates, editorialize on local issues, and otherwise serve as a means of local expression. The Commission has recognized this as an important area of broadcast service. Yet here we have 7 stations which propose no programs of this type at all. This includes the only station in Arlington, Florida, a community of 23,000 nearly adjacent to Jacksonville; the only station in Indian Rocks Beach (discussed above); one of two stations in Panama City Beach, Florida; the only station on the Island of Vieques off Puerto Rico; and two of the four AM stations in Tallahassee, the capital of Florida. Certainly these seem to me situations in which we should inquire further before accepting total absence of any programming in this important program category.

Another group of stations proposes from .03% to .4% in this category. The former is virtually equivalent to no undertaking at all, and the latter represents less than 22 minutes a week for a daytimer on an assumed rough average of 13 hours per day and only some 40 minutes per week for a full time station operating 24 hours a day. This still seems to me a grudging contribution to the

public's understanding of its problems-especially when it is noted that this includes one of the two AM stations in New Smyrna Beach, Key West, De Funiak Springs, and Vero Beach.

The third category noted above includes stations with from .6% to .9% public affairs-the latter figure representing only 91 minutes a week for a 24-hour a day station, and much less, of course, for stations-daytime only or otherwisewhich operate on more limited schedules. This group includes the only station in communities such as South Miami (which, of course, receives service from Miami and Miami Beach, but was found deserving of a station of its own), Immokalee (a town of over 3,000 population which is not close to any larger community), Marathon (a community of over 3,000 in the Florida Keys), and Winter Garden (a town of over 5,500 some 15 miles west of Orlando), as well as one of the two stations in Sebring (a community of some 7,000 people which is not near any major community). I think we should inquire further before accepting these proposals as a reasonable service to the communities in question.' In a statement attached to Report No. 6064 issued July 8, 1966, I set forth my reasons for dissenting to the renewal of the licenses of 19 AM or combination AM-FM broadcast operations in New York and New Jersey because they proposed to devote less than 5% of their time to the Public Affairs and Other categories. I made clear-as I want to do here-that it was quite possible that the proposals could be justified, but that I was protesting the routine grant of their applications without inquiring further into the matter.

I am of the same view with respect to the thirty stations listed above which propose less than 5% Public Affairs and Other (Religious, Instructional and Agricultural) programming. I see no reason to restate my earlier arguments, so am simply attaching them in as appendix A. However, I would note a few specifics as to these applications. WSBB, one of two stations in New Smyrna Beach, proposes a total of .1% for four of our seven program categories; WOKB, the only station in Winter Garden proposes 1.2%. Without explanation, this seems to me so ridiculously inadequate that I cannot comprehend my colleagues acquiescence without some inquiry into the matter. WDCJ, the only station in Arlington, proposes 3.6% for these categories-along with the .6% it proposes for news-which seems, again, to raise obvious questions.

Others of the stations in this category listed above propose a little more in these areas, and in some instances they operate in markets with other broadcast services—but quite possibly more complex problems requiring broadcast exposure and consideration. However, the proposals are still so minimal as to require further investigation. A very hurried check indicates that some of these stations are not profitable, which may explain some of the programming deficiencies in question. If this is true, I think we should know it, because such information might be of value to us in our overall regulation of AM broadcasting. On the other hand, however, my check indicated that some of these stations are producing quite satisfactory profits or other returns to their owners, so that the need of finding other explanations for their program policies is even clearer. So for these reasons-and those more basic ones stated in connection with the New York-New Jersey renewals-I think the Commission should not renew these licenses without further inquiry.

WOCN is a special case. It originally proposed 100% entertainment, but later amended to add 5.4% News programming. However, it still proposes no Public Affairs, Religious, Instructional or Agricultural programs. Apparently this station had in the past won some kind of approval for an all entertainment format, though I have no recollection of ever participating in such a judgment. If so, I think this is an undesirable precedent. If all of the other stations in Miami can claim the same privilege, I would think we could expect a fairly general sloughing off of non-entertainment programming, with consequent diminution in the service radio would provide to the community. If the Commission has authorized this kind of programming on the grounds that the station broadcasts especially meritorious musical programming and would not permit other stations to devote nearly all their time to less meritorious entertainment, I would think this would involve the majority in the kind of subjective programming actions they normally avoid. Again, I do not think it is sound policy to excuse a station-even in a multi-station market like Miami-from any responsibility

3 From a late filing it appears that WSLC in Clermont proposes to devote only 0.19% of its time to public affairs. This means less than 10 minutes out of its weekly schedule of 87 hours, which hardly seems adequate service in this important area by the only station in this community of over 3,300 population.

for Public Affairs or Other programming, unless it be shown that it has undertaken a corresponding obligation in some other area aside from entertainment, sports, and perhaps news. I might agree that a station could avoid responsibility for extensive religious programming if it demonstrated that it was making a special effort in the area of instructional programming. What bothers me about approving a very narrow program format is that it may shift the burden of less popular and more difficult or expensive programming to the remaining stations. I do not consider this fair to the competing stations or in the interests of the radio audience in the community.

For these reasons I dissent to the renewals in question, whether now or hereafter granted.

APPENDIX A

DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER Kenneth A. Cox, ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH REPORT No. 6064, JULY 8, 1966

I dissent to the renewal of the licenses of these stations without further inquiry as to the adequacy of their service in the areas of public affairs, agricultural, instruction and religion. What I have to say applies also to WBBF, Rochester, and WTLB, Utica, both in New York, and to WJRZ and WVNJ, Newark, New Jersey. These four stations are not being renewed at this time because of other deficiencies which will no doubt soon be resolved. However, I believe the Commission should have directed letters to them as well as to the stations listed above.

We have recently adopted a new AM-FM program form which is being used by current renewal applicants to report the programming they propose to present during the upcoming license period. Under more carefully drawn definitions, applicants are asked to state the minimum amount of time they propose to devote normally each week to "News," to "Public Affairs," and to "All other programs, exclusive of Entertainment and Sports." This latter grouping includes "Religious," "Agricultural," "Instructional" and "Other" programming.

A study of the applications filed by the June 1, 1966 renewal group discloses that nineteen AM stations propose to devote less than 5% of their broadcast time to the "Public Affairs" and "Other" categories. In some cases other portions of the application seem to suggest that these figures are too low, since reference is made to programming that does not seem to fit into the time allotment indicated. If this is true, we should write the stations to get the matter clarified.

However, if the figures given are accurate, this means that these stations propose to spend as little as twenty-one minutes a day on such programming an to devote from 95.4% to 98.5% of their broadcast time to "Entertainment," "News," and "Sports." Certainly these latter categories of programming serve the public interest and would be expected to occupy a large percentage of the time of most stations. However, the remaining categories so minimally represented in the proposed schedules of these stations are also vitally important to the public. But they are far less likely to be commercially saleable than entertainment, news, and sports, are often more difficult to develop and present, and generally attract smaller audiences. In short, normal self interest and competitive pressures do not serve to stimulate programming in these categories as well as in the areas more likely to attract maximum audiences and advertiser support. If broadcasting is not to drift into an ever increasing concern for ratings and profits-and if broadcasters who would like to serve the full range of interests and needs in their communities are not to be placed at an intolerable disadvantage by their more materialistic competitors-I believe that the public, through it government, must regularly review the performance of those to whom it has entrusted the airwaves. I think this review should be designed to see that certain very general minimum standards are maintained--and that this can be done without violating the First Amendment or Section 326 of the Communications Act.

I am not prepared to say that all nineteen of these stations are falling so far short of their obligation to serve the public interest in the areas of public affairs, religion, instruction, and agriculture that their licenses should not eventually be renewed. But I am satisfied that they should not be given renewals on the information now before us. I think we should make further inquiry as to the basis for their determination that the minimal time proposed will be sufficient to serve their communities' needs in these critical areas. If the matter is then still in doubt, we should explore the question further in local hearings. There may be vaild reasons for the level of programming proposed in some, or

all, of these cases. But if, without determining this, we simply accept whatever is proposed-no matter how slight-then this makes a farce of the whole reporting and reviewing process.

Our new program form requires an applicant to state the methods used to ascertain the needs and interests of the public served, to describe the significant needs and interests he believes his station will serve during the coming license period, and to list typical and illustrative programs (excluding Entertainment and News) which he plans to broadcast to meet those needs and interests. To permit a renewal applicant to recite a long list of community activities engaged in by his staff, to indicate that he concentrates on "government, politics and public affairs" or to refer to his "dedication in the area of public affairs, documentary and discussion programs"-as two of the nineteen stations here in question do!-and then to accept without question a gruding 20 or 30 minutes a day as fulfilling his obligation to serve his community's needs in these important areas seems to me an abdication of our duty to the public whose interests we are charged to protect.

This process should lead to the ascertainment of specific needs and to the development of identifiable programs to serve those needs. We cannot say that a licensee in a community faced with the typical problems of today has either accurately measured the needs of his audience or adequately served them if the end result is a schedule overwhelmingly devoted to entertainment and sports, enriched in some cases by a competent, or even distinguished, news service, but with only a crumb of time here and there to discuss and analyze the problems reported in the news, or to bring the inspiration of religion or the wisdom of its lay and clerical leaders to the public, or to educate them concerning the arts, the sciences, new vocations, or leisure time activities. Radio is now some fortyfive years old. Surely it should strive to be-with due allowance for the admitted need for a viable economic base-something more than a juke box, a ball park, and a news ticker. If it is permitted to aim no higher than this, I think a vital resource for community service will be squandered-and this agency will be largely responsible for that result.

It will not do, I think, to wrap oneself in the First Amendment and say that broadcasters must be free to speak as they will. Let them speak, and let them present others whom they believe to be qualified to speak-but if none of this speech is devoted to commentary on crucial problems of the day, or to religious inspiration, or to instruction, or to service to the agricultural audience (if the station has one), all this concern for freedom has a hollow ring. I think objections to our consideration of the degree to which broadcasters meet the needs of their communities arise more from a desire to be free from the observance of standards of service which may restrict profits than from a burning desire for freedom of expression. Surely the licensees of these stations can provide adequate time for these important community needs and still have plenty of time for the broadcast of any message they may have for their audiences.

I think it is ridiculous to argue that a broadcaster who has played records, covered sports events, and presented news for more than 23 hours of each day— all commercially sponsored-is being subjected to an impairment of his freedom to speak if someone inquires whether it would not better serve the public interest, though perhaps not his private interest, if more than 25 or 30 minutes of the remaining hour could be devoted to public affairs, religion, etc. No one proposes to tell him what issues he should discuss, what candidates he should present, what religious services or other programs he should broadcast, what subjects he should teach, or what special programs for the agricultural audience he should offer. He is free to design his service in these areas as he wishes— but I do not think his right of free speech can be equated with freedom to squeeze the last dollar of profit from his use of his publicly licensed channel by playing more records, presenting more sports, and broadcasting more news. The public interest in such programming has presumably been adequately served already— certainly in relation to the attention given to the other areas in which broadcasters have traditionally served their audiences. I think the maintenance of minimum standards of service in these often less favored categories of programming actually promotes freedom of expression since they are precisely the ones which involve ideas and opinions. I think that discharge of a broadcaster's obligations in these areas will represent a more significant exercise of free expression than the playing of another record!

I think it should be recognized that many stations do present substantial amounts of programming in these categories. In this renewal group, twelve